Globalisation originated from The Brookings Institution in 1916, and made its real mark in the 70's under Nixon. It gathered further pace under Carter and Reagan and of course Thatcher as measures were taken then by both leaders to engage a new economic principle of a free market economy.Strobe Talbott is President of the Brookings Institution and a leading proponent of Uni-Polarism. Strobe Talbott was Director of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, at Yale University before he became president of The Brookings Institution and was a U.S. Deputy Secretary of State under Bill Clinton who is a proponent of The New World Order.
The Brookings Institution conducts research and education in the social sciences, primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, governance, foreign policy, and global economy and development".
You can watch an interview with Strobe Talbott on "Spotlight" ( 28th August 2008 ) here where he talks of relations between the US and Russia, and opinionates there can be no "multi-polarist world". He says only a uni-polar or bi-polar world is possible.
Uni-polarism - globalisation - Free Market - De-regulated Finance = New World Order for finance.
Other aspects of the NWO as described above are :-
"Metropolitan policy - Governance and, Foreign policy"
The Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation at Yale University was financed by the UK Government in 2001.
I recall Gordon Brown being the architect of the "Aid for Trade" programme which led to the bringing about of the G8 summit meetings and Doha talks which is designed to converge multi-polarism into uni-polarist decision making.
The Yale University Globalisation website says :-
Global economic governance
The painfully acquired awareness of the need for an international rules-based framework is what led to building the existing multilateral system, a system that has made important contributions to the unprecedented progress and economic growth that many countries have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the challenges of globalization today cannot adequately be handled by a system that was designed largely for the world of more than half a century ago. For a range of common problems the world has no formal institutional mechanism to ensure that voices representing all relevant domains are heard in the discussion, nor is there an instrument or procedure commonly agreed upon for deciding who does what. The Center aims to contribute to the discussion of how to fill the existing gaps in global economic governance.
Foreign policy role of key international players
The strategies and policies of the major geopolitical actors affect the whole structure of international relations. Consequently, the Center will embark in foreign policy discussions exploring the choices, demands, and options as well as the internal and external forces acting upon major players such as the U.S. and the EU as they develop their policies.
Reform of United Nations
Extract: ( pdf )
Since the end of the Cold War, the Council has been much more active than before, but a few remarkable successes apart, it has continued to be deadlocked when trying to prevent or solve serious crises. Not surprisingly, Security Council reform, which last took place some 40 years ago, has been an outstanding issue for a long time. Various attempts to adapt the Council have failed due to strong disagreements among UN members, particularly on the issue of enlargement.
Global governance for peace and security
For good reason, one of the oldest applications of international cooperation is found in the area of peace and security. Yet, it is obvious that existing multilateral arrangements to control international violence are not appropriate to deal with present or foreseeable conflicts and threats. An international environment characterized by conflict and violence would end up undermining, or even reversing, globalization, as occurred previously prior to the second World War. Consequently, the Center will work to support the generation of ideas to improve global collaboration for peace and security.
Key factors for inclusion in globalization
Although it is usually true that “one size does not fit all,” there is also the valid presumption that there are some policy-dependent factors that will make it more likely for people, communities and countries to engage successfully in the global market economy. Helping to identify those factors will also be a defining criteria for the Center’s future activities.
Papers include: "The Future of Migration": Irresistible Forces meet Immovable Ideas Lant Pritchett Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Center for Global Development.
Globalization surely involves all aspects of world trade, enlargement, foreign policy, security, reform of international laws within the United Nations, and world immigration, and world economic policies, and is by any other name The New World Order.
Extract from Yale University study of Globalization. ( website )
The programs and activities of the Center share a common purpose and aim toward one or more goals, all serving to stimulate discussion and examination of the core issues and to connect individuals and institutions whose work contributes to the debate on globalization. Central to YCSG’s goals is to link academia and the policy world.
You only have to listen to what players in this fiasco are saying to one another to find out why we have "Global Problems".
August 30, 2008, 0:37 Putin: Russia won’t be isolated
"Europe and the U.S. are not the whole world,” he said.
Medvedev says no to uni-polarism
Unbelievable as it seems, President John F Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower spoke of the threat of the New World Order. George Bush, Henry Kissinger, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, all spoke of The New World Order.
Is he the most dangerous man in the world..........?
"Globalisation is across party divide and throwing cultures and countries together. This is one of the issues I'll explore in the faith and globalisation course which I'm starting with Yale University later this year"Tony Blair 2008
The Federal Reserve dedicated to a free market.
Did mankind stop in time or did we leave it too late?
Has Tony Blair succeeded with his plan to globalize our world and are we too late to stop him?
By Rugfish
Has Tony Blair succeeded with his plan to globalize our world and are we too late to stop him?
By Rugfish
Listening to Tony Blair, you could be forgiven for thinking he knows what he's talking about. His delivery is perfect and his ability to command the attention of large audiences is in no doubt. Heck, let's face it. He once enthralled his audiences and ran a country as a consequence of his arguable success at these things. But the question is still pertinent if we ask ourselves whether he actually knows what he's talking about. He was a trainee barrister wasn't he who then became a politician. He's not a theologian, an economist, an elder statesman who's coped with economic turmoils and an unbalanced world remember. He was given a clean sheet to write on and thus he began to write and then to speak and people began to listen didn't they? So what have they actually been listening too?
In the speech he gives above, which I will place another link on here in a moment where you may read it in full. He talks of 'globalization of politics' and he talks of 'globalization and faith'. I'll come back to the global politics in a moment because that's the area I'm most interested, but I wanted to say something about his Global Faith first, or more aptly named, his 'Global Crusade'.
He simply preaches that all faith's can come together. Think about it, that's an atheists dream. That all men should come together is not however a new call it is a messianic call which as history shows us is fraught with many dangers. Tony turned 'preacher'. Tony was listened to, had an audience, was able to persuade and he was trusted by many, and was able to accomplish these things because he'd once been the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and could as a simple result of that position continue automatically to command large audiences. He has the stage, he has the ears of people and he has what amounts to a messianic message that all things should be 'global' including mankind, the trade we conduct, the political, economic and foreign policies we have, and all religions. Now at this point my mind is already made up about this message and I have to say I'm against it. In fact if Tony Blair had given such a speech 300 years back he'd very likely have ended his days in the midst of a flaming bonfire or on the stage where the axeman was waiting rather than the cosy one afforded him at Westminster Cathedral for he is undoubtedly not much short than a lay preacher and a bit shorter than a shilling when it comes to knowing what he's talking about.
Do I know what I'm talking about?
Well I had to get that question answered before I could move on. My answer is I don't have to. How's that? Because I'm not the one preaching and I'm not the one who was unhappy with our world before listening to Tony Blair. You see, I'll come back to it here. Tony was handed a clean sheet! There was 'nothing wrong with our world before HE began to change it. Of course you might see it differently than I do but I am none the less right in what I say when talking about politics, economics and faith, for in 1997 we were in fact in a world much different to the 'global soup' we are in now which is as he and the world would say, with problems.
We didn't have terrorism.
We didn't have an economic catastrophe on our hands.
We didn't have global trade making global workers.
We didn't have global corporations chewing up the earth.
We didn't have a global financial system.
We didn't have global warming.
These are a few things but of course there are lots more things we didn't have in our global soup because the global soup was engineered and manufactured by Tony Blair. He was the maker of our world. He persuaded George W Bush to follow his path in Iraq for instance. Recall that the CIA said it acted on information received from the UK and Germany and we were later told the US administration acted on that information when it took us to war. Col Colin Powell made direct reference to weapons of mass destruction and based his references on the CIA report which was flawed. It was wrong and clearly not true no matter how it is painted, and surely this is not a good premise on which to build messages of 'global peace', yet he's out there gathering audiences around the world with his messianic message that somehow in his belief, mankind can obliterate the problems which did not exist before he gained an audience in 1997, by somehow melding the entire human race into one glutinous blob. No doubt Tony Blair is an extremely talented orator however and a quite brilliant political escapist in fact. I give him credit for that as well as his intelligence. But the fact I assume his intelligence led him to where he is today, is what it is, belies a certain perplexity when hearing him attempt to turn the world and all its many historical ways literally on its head, for how on this earth could a person be so stupid not to see there would be problems?
I guess if I were to combat him on the issue of faith alone, I'd firstly be asking what right he thinks he has to speak for all religions as plainly he has none. End of debate then I would say. Next question is, when making his case to globalize economics and financial systems, did he stop to consider that he has no qualification in economics and that economists themselves are in fact unready to accept it will work?
I guess there are some who would run up an argument and base it on some soothsayer such as Nostradamus for instance or the biblical prophesies of Armageddon, which also seems quite certain if he carries on and would perhaps paint him to be the bloke with 666 on his head. But I'm an agnostic and I like to think of myself as a pragmatist and I don't believe in things I can't see. I tend to look at what I see, listen to what people say, and then I decide whether I like it. But I'm rarely if ever influenced by the dreams of another when I have my own, which by a rather strange coincidence includes peace and equilibrium, and control of economics and politics along with a democratic choice to others when considering reshaping the entire world and all that is in it including me. Maybe I'm odd in this respect. Maybe it's just me who loves peace and no depression. I dunno. Maybe Tony Blair was right to invade Iraq, attempt to bring all faiths together with his global multicultural plan, break the generally accepted links between people and state by denying them democracy, loosen the economic rules which led us into depression and basically cause calamity for mankind along with the seeds of Armageddon?
Can we stop it and if so how?
In the speech he gives above, which I will place another link on here in a moment where you may read it in full. He talks of 'globalization of politics' and he talks of 'globalization and faith'. I'll come back to the global politics in a moment because that's the area I'm most interested, but I wanted to say something about his Global Faith first, or more aptly named, his 'Global Crusade'.
He simply preaches that all faith's can come together. Think about it, that's an atheists dream. That all men should come together is not however a new call it is a messianic call which as history shows us is fraught with many dangers. Tony turned 'preacher'. Tony was listened to, had an audience, was able to persuade and he was trusted by many, and was able to accomplish these things because he'd once been the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and could as a simple result of that position continue automatically to command large audiences. He has the stage, he has the ears of people and he has what amounts to a messianic message that all things should be 'global' including mankind, the trade we conduct, the political, economic and foreign policies we have, and all religions. Now at this point my mind is already made up about this message and I have to say I'm against it. In fact if Tony Blair had given such a speech 300 years back he'd very likely have ended his days in the midst of a flaming bonfire or on the stage where the axeman was waiting rather than the cosy one afforded him at Westminster Cathedral for he is undoubtedly not much short than a lay preacher and a bit shorter than a shilling when it comes to knowing what he's talking about.
Do I know what I'm talking about?
Well I had to get that question answered before I could move on. My answer is I don't have to. How's that? Because I'm not the one preaching and I'm not the one who was unhappy with our world before listening to Tony Blair. You see, I'll come back to it here. Tony was handed a clean sheet! There was 'nothing wrong with our world before HE began to change it. Of course you might see it differently than I do but I am none the less right in what I say when talking about politics, economics and faith, for in 1997 we were in fact in a world much different to the 'global soup' we are in now which is as he and the world would say, with problems.
We didn't have terrorism.
We didn't have an economic catastrophe on our hands.
We didn't have global trade making global workers.
We didn't have global corporations chewing up the earth.
We didn't have a global financial system.
We didn't have global warming.
These are a few things but of course there are lots more things we didn't have in our global soup because the global soup was engineered and manufactured by Tony Blair. He was the maker of our world. He persuaded George W Bush to follow his path in Iraq for instance. Recall that the CIA said it acted on information received from the UK and Germany and we were later told the US administration acted on that information when it took us to war. Col Colin Powell made direct reference to weapons of mass destruction and based his references on the CIA report which was flawed. It was wrong and clearly not true no matter how it is painted, and surely this is not a good premise on which to build messages of 'global peace', yet he's out there gathering audiences around the world with his messianic message that somehow in his belief, mankind can obliterate the problems which did not exist before he gained an audience in 1997, by somehow melding the entire human race into one glutinous blob. No doubt Tony Blair is an extremely talented orator however and a quite brilliant political escapist in fact. I give him credit for that as well as his intelligence. But the fact I assume his intelligence led him to where he is today, is what it is, belies a certain perplexity when hearing him attempt to turn the world and all its many historical ways literally on its head, for how on this earth could a person be so stupid not to see there would be problems?
I guess if I were to combat him on the issue of faith alone, I'd firstly be asking what right he thinks he has to speak for all religions as plainly he has none. End of debate then I would say. Next question is, when making his case to globalize economics and financial systems, did he stop to consider that he has no qualification in economics and that economists themselves are in fact unready to accept it will work?
I guess there are some who would run up an argument and base it on some soothsayer such as Nostradamus for instance or the biblical prophesies of Armageddon, which also seems quite certain if he carries on and would perhaps paint him to be the bloke with 666 on his head. But I'm an agnostic and I like to think of myself as a pragmatist and I don't believe in things I can't see. I tend to look at what I see, listen to what people say, and then I decide whether I like it. But I'm rarely if ever influenced by the dreams of another when I have my own, which by a rather strange coincidence includes peace and equilibrium, and control of economics and politics along with a democratic choice to others when considering reshaping the entire world and all that is in it including me. Maybe I'm odd in this respect. Maybe it's just me who loves peace and no depression. I dunno. Maybe Tony Blair was right to invade Iraq, attempt to bring all faiths together with his global multicultural plan, break the generally accepted links between people and state by denying them democracy, loosen the economic rules which led us into depression and basically cause calamity for mankind along with the seeds of Armageddon?
Can we stop it and if so how?
The plain answer to that one is "yes we can". (Now where have we heard that said before)?
Yes we can reverse global meddling but it will take an awful lot of patience and time. Plus, it will involve much frustration and much hardship to come back to reality. The reality being that the only way we can control the aspects of finance and of faith and of politics, democracy and the attachments between people and state, is to actually make these things distinctly based on a respect for diversity rather than trying to make them all fit together into a global framework which fails to put first the essential needs of mankind to retain stability and control and respect for one another, rather than concerning ourselves with what Tony Blair tells us is "inevitable". Nothing is this world is inevitable Mr Blair and any intelligent man would surely know that?
I think it's fair to say we can reverse this global thinking if political leaders take the right steps to adjust foreign policies and world finance. I think it sounds like Obama has made a start with his announcement to withdraw US troops from Iraq. This is a good thing. It remains to see whether world leaders will make the right decisions at the world G20 summit in London in April, but on the face of it, this looks rather like they've not yet fully learned the lesson that globalised finance will bring about globalised depression if they get it wrong. I see it can be achieved another way if leaders simply decide to acknowledge they have given us a massive economic problem which won't go away with more of the same. So in Obama's words again, we need "Change". That change would be on the basis we start to place people before corporations however, and there are that many invested interests at play, I feel it is near impossible to reverse these problems in one meeting in London by the G20 as it's a very complicated matter involving the entire human race and quite rightly we are all deeply concerned about the outcome. All I'd ask, is that someone stops Tony Blair from attending that summit where if he did attend, I'm sure he'd be using his powers of persuasion on a global plan which has already been proven to be completely wrong.
Meanwhile, you might want to watch an alternative viewpoint to that of Tony Blair.
More: "Why are we paying these people"
More: "Globalisation"
More: "Dangerous man"
More: " Link to Blair's full speech"
Yes we can reverse global meddling but it will take an awful lot of patience and time. Plus, it will involve much frustration and much hardship to come back to reality. The reality being that the only way we can control the aspects of finance and of faith and of politics, democracy and the attachments between people and state, is to actually make these things distinctly based on a respect for diversity rather than trying to make them all fit together into a global framework which fails to put first the essential needs of mankind to retain stability and control and respect for one another, rather than concerning ourselves with what Tony Blair tells us is "inevitable". Nothing is this world is inevitable Mr Blair and any intelligent man would surely know that?
I think it's fair to say we can reverse this global thinking if political leaders take the right steps to adjust foreign policies and world finance. I think it sounds like Obama has made a start with his announcement to withdraw US troops from Iraq. This is a good thing. It remains to see whether world leaders will make the right decisions at the world G20 summit in London in April, but on the face of it, this looks rather like they've not yet fully learned the lesson that globalised finance will bring about globalised depression if they get it wrong. I see it can be achieved another way if leaders simply decide to acknowledge they have given us a massive economic problem which won't go away with more of the same. So in Obama's words again, we need "Change". That change would be on the basis we start to place people before corporations however, and there are that many invested interests at play, I feel it is near impossible to reverse these problems in one meeting in London by the G20 as it's a very complicated matter involving the entire human race and quite rightly we are all deeply concerned about the outcome. All I'd ask, is that someone stops Tony Blair from attending that summit where if he did attend, I'm sure he'd be using his powers of persuasion on a global plan which has already been proven to be completely wrong.
Meanwhile, you might want to watch an alternative viewpoint to that of Tony Blair.
More: "Why are we paying these people"
More: "Globalisation"
More: "Dangerous man"
More: " Link to Blair's full speech"
